People concerned about the fate of Naples should attend the Board hearing on 7/2 by around 9:30 AM for Item #4. Ask the Board to immediately deny the request for transfer of the development agreement based on the developer’s failure to provide any information on his financial capacity or reputation. See letter # 5 at http://santabarbara.legistar.com/Legi... for more information and details. The fight to Save Naples is far from over!

The Naples Coalition, Surfrider Foundation and EDC have been working for decades to preserve the magnificent ecological, cultural, and scenic rural characteristics of Naples. We believe the county approvals are deeply flawed and unworkable, and currently we have a lawsuit pending that could vacate all approvals and send the project back to square one. No development at Naples can occur without Coastal permits, and the Coastal Commission review process has not even begun. Naples has a history of public use, and the Bank has recorded a notice opening all of their lands to public use. Regardless of who owns it, Santa Barbara’s environmental and conservation community will maintain their unwavering opposition to any attempt to develop the crown jewel of the Gaviota Coast.

Beach Fan - I speak only for myself, but from what I've seen of your comments, you're pretty biased against anything EDC says or does, so I myself couldn't justify putting the time in to answer your question. I'm sure you'd allege another vast left-wing wing conspiracy based on one comment out of context. But its all public record.But tell me, what's wrong with using your real name and owning your comment? The First amendment protects your right to free speech, so the black helicopters won't come after you. JohnLocke - your response is hilarious - got the facts wrong about timing of events that didn't exist and you claim that this isn't getting the facts wrong. Made my day. BTW, What's your excuse for hiding your identity?

Commenters - get your facts straight - the wind farm is being challenged in court only by COLABite attorney Richard Adams (Brother of the supervisorial candidate Peter Adams, Adams Brothers Farms who unsuccessfully sued the county over wetland delineation years ago). And has been rejected at every turn, so sounds like he really doesn't have a meritorious environmental case or even genuine environmental issues. Sounds like EDC, using the public review process, helped make the project better. But that is old news.Siting new renewable power plants like this is tricky - some sites are better than others, and some sites are just not appropriate at all, even though there are environmental benefits. It takes some careful study.But the impediment the Lompoc facility and other renewable projects face is uncertain economics, as these projects need subsidy themselves to compete with heavily subsidized and externalized fossil fuel power sources. Congress has been downright ignorant when it comes to thinking ahead about our future on the planet and shifting to sustainable power sources. Hurricane Sandy provides an example of some of the externalized costs of carbon based electricity that will now be paid in disrupted lives, severe economic costs, and higher insurance premiums, among many. Bring on the renewable power, but do it right. We in the environmental community all looked pretty carefully at the Lompoc project, helped make it the best it could be, and it was approved expeditiously. The mysterious John Locke should look in the mirror and see if his own political allies are in fact to blame for the delays reported by Mr. Stewart. But I'm not expecting an apology or retraction.

If Measure Y fails, the entire project approval is dead, and the entire project will have to go back to the City and start again. The Coastal Commission considered the revisions to the City Local Coastal Plan (LCP) associated with the annexation of these lands from county to city, and requested that the City make modifications to the Veronica Meadows portion of the LCP concerning what kind of development is appropriate in the creek buffer zone. Under the Coastal Act, the City had to accept those modifications within 6 months, or the LCP submittal would be deemed rejected and the LCP amendment process would have to start anew. The City did NOT accept those modifications, and so the LCP processing must also start again with the Coastal commission.

Lee hired Davies Communications to help sell the project to city voters. Most of the Yes commenters first registered on the Indy page in July 2009 and commented in favor of another ill-conceived project that was extensively green-washed by Davies - the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden’s expansion plan. Jfitz, Num1ofAn fit this category. GoGouchos122 registered for the Veronica Meadows project and clearly is another Davies/Lee stooge. All other commenters are familiar names that, not surprisingly, all find fault with the City giveaway of parkland for this private developer. Too bad the reporter didn’t take the time to cover the issue, only the press conference. If he had, he would have reported that the bridge on city parkland will cause a permanent negative impact to the creek, even with Lee’s “restoration benefits.” People would realize that the trail will encourage pedestrians and bikes to cross a 55 mph roadway with only a crosswalk - that’s not safe! This project builds the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place - sensitive coastal creek habitat. Santa Barbara knows better - Vote No on Y!